Anti slavery people were evil from the beginning

Anti slavery people were always evil scum, and the modern left walks in their evil and hateful footsteps.

The Africa Association was founded to explore and economically develop africa. It came completely under the control of anti slavery people, and changed its purpose to opposing slavery and humanizing blacks, showing that the left were entryists back then as they are now.

So then as now, they engaged in perjury to accuse innocent people of grave crimes.

William Wilberforce, the founder of the anti slavery movement, purported to be an Anglican and to subscribe to the 39 articles, that being at the time a requirement to be allowed near the levers of power, but his claim was fraudulent, making him an apostate, for his church claimed that members of his church were saints, and regular Anglicans were not – and again, the left has not changed since then.

He should have been enslaved for apostasy in office, and sent to the West Indies, and if he had been England and the British Empire would still be going fine.

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 20th, 2015 at 07:31 and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

30 Responses to “Anti slavery people were evil from the beginning”

The Abolitionists never really cared about the black slaves. After the US Civil War, they just let many of the slaves to starve to death.

This reminds me of all these SJW’s shedding their crocodile tears over the massacre of black women at a bible study in South Carolina by a white thug. If a black thug did this, it would just be another day in a Chicago weekend for these SJW’s.

You see, if you want to use blacks as the Mutt in your Mutt and Jeff act, obviously you have to usurp the position of their masters. Explicit masters, who would be held responsible if their slaves rioted, obviously aren’t going to allow their slaves to riot. One needs implicit bureaucrat-style masters.

My biggest problem with the NRX is the inability to define what it means to be right.

If slavery is your conclusion then what are the premises? Slavery because otherwise the slaves will starve, slavery because otherwise the slaves will revolt, will live on welfare, will commit crime. Is the virtue then to understood as what is best for potential slaves?

This failure to clearly state any virtue is detrimental to any organization as it lacks any clear boundaries as to where the right ends and the left begins.

When you explore these matters, either here in writing or just BSing with friends, the discussion ALWAYS ends with a moral/absolute question: But what is absolutely good and right? Where to begin logically?

I’m convinced that Jim and Moldbug etc are mostly correct in their logic and conclusions, but they can’t address my Big Question above. That doesn’t take their correctness away, though, and we have to live with that.

Game theory says that our best interests are served if we can credibly commit ourselves to not doing whatever we happen to desire. Thus, escape from prisoner’s dilemma. There is a game theory module in our heads that cynically and ruthlessly figures out what commitments will serve our best long term Darwinian interests. It tends to think we are still in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, but is somewhat aware of present day reality, in particular, very sensitive to the momentary present balance of power. It then generates the necessary commitments, which are sincerely felt.

That the “Venus” would choose life as a side-show exhibition over her own homeland shows how out of place third-worlders are in white countries, and how foolish the request from the African Association was. “Jim”‘s right, in that it never should have gotten to that point and that a better action would have been for moral authorities like the Church to re-focus them with some fear of personal punishment.

Raffles did what was required as belatedly as he could get away with. You won’t catch him lecturing people on how bad slavery is, nor going out of his way to find real and imaginary instances of slavery.

Given the rest of Raffles’ actions, I doubt he prioritized avoiding being given shit at home vs. doing what he presumed to be the right thing. Slavery was a native institution, and he could have reasonably ignored it.

People got on Raffles back. They did not like him conquering Asia, and having conquered a large chunk of Asia, did not like the fact that he allowed the conquered to continue according to their customs.

In his statement of services, Raffles tells us he told the chiefs that the policy of the British government was to abolish slavery – and then proceeded to “abolish” slavery in ways that led to its gradual disappearance rather than overnight termination, directly and immediately freeing only a few hundred people. So the chiefs got a long leash to bring their polities gradually into line with the policy of the British government over time. Compare and contrast with the abolitionists policy of drama, brutal violence, demonization, severe punishment, and dramatic confrontation.

Raffles excuses himself to the chiefs by blaming the British government. Why should we doubt him?

I agree that Raffles was better than the abolitionists. But if we have little reason that think that he was being disingenuous with the chiefs when telling them that the policy of the British government was abolitionism, we have even less reason to think he was being disingenuous with the British government, or internally disagreed with its policy.

Horses all descend from one stallion, who happened to be affected with a genetic defect that kept him from killing the shit out of any human coming near him. They have been subject to millennia of breeding aimed at getting them docile and controllable. Still, about 80K Americans go to the emergency room per year from horses, out of about 7 million horse riders. That’s about 1% injury rates per year (we’ll round it up for handlers, vets and so on.)

Now, what do you think happens when you take the most problematic (heh) dudes in West Africa, the guys whom their neighbors and chiefs want to get rid of, and give them machetes and other farm equipment?

Right. You get colonies of maroons. Constant tension-the expectation that your slaves might up and murder you (this existed in every slavery-based society, including Sparta, Rome and the medieval European countries-“jacquerie” is not a Bantu word.) The requirement for overseers, and the kind of guys who’d work as overseers. And when things get iffy, you’ve got a nice stock of guys who hate your guts and would love to rip them out of you-and might be able to do it. Just ask Leclerc-he lost a division’s worth of Napoleon’s finest to the Haitians.

We have contemporary reports that the slaves were not surly, that they were happy and friendly. This, of course, may have something to do with the fact that slaves that appeared surly found themselves working a chain gang with little contact with whites or females.

Yes it’s funny to control people like puppets hanging from strings. It’s so funny that we can pretend that the controlled people are acting on their own initiative with the unmentioned intense degree of control being the inside joke. So very, very funny!

They were surly back home in Africa, too, which is why they got sold off into slavery.

The question of whether slavery was good or bad for the slaves is complicated. Obviously, being a slave in the US was, on the whole, a better deal in material terms than being back in Africa, since the slave population skyrocketed while the population in Africa didn’t. Morally, it’s questionable-judging from the maroon colonies, the profession of slave hunters, etc., a minority of American slaves found severe physical punishment and death worth risking to get free.

Being a slave in Haiti was arguably a worse deal materially than being back in Africa, but a better deal than the alternative to slavery, since that alternative was being killed by the guys who decided to sell you instead. Being a mulatto slave was pretty shitty, morally speaking, since your father had bred you out of your mother and then denied you as his son. As always, a lot depended on your individual overseer and master.

>You’re arguing the position “do not import Africans into your country”, for which you will encounter no disagreement.

I specifically said: “Constant tension-the expectation that your slaves might up and murder you (this existed in every slavery-based society, including Sparta, Rome and the medieval European countries-“jacquerie” is not a Bantu word.)”

[…] of liberalism is contending for the soul of The Enlightenment. He also notes, in passing, that the Anti slavery people were evil from the beginning. And Jim points us to Greg Hood’s Based. Hood is enjoying seeing left-liberals dangling over […]